beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below recognized the defendant as an aiding and abetting a criminal despite the fact that the defendant could have been involved in the singishing crime with the intention of co-processing, which was erroneous or misunderstanding the legal principles as to co-principal
(b) Sentencing and competition (in original instance: Imprisonment with prison labor for four months);
2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
A. The lower court determined that there was no proof as to the Defendant’s intent to jointly process as a co-principal in excess of the intent of aiding and abetting fraud recognized by the Defendant, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant knew that he was employed as a debt collector and engaged in the collection of money; (b) the Defendant and Bosing employees correspond to the contents of the Kakao Stockholm conversation among the Defendant and Bosing employees; (c) the Defendant cannot be deemed to have played an important role in remitting money as notified by his name-free persons; and (c) the Defendant did not receive information on the entire fraud; and (d) was in charge of remitting money in accordance with the instructions of his name-free winners; and (e) it appears that there was no clear perception as to the role in the entire crime.
B. In the relation of co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime by two or more persons, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons to jointly process a crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of intent is formed in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established between several persons, and even if such conspiracy was not directly involved in the conduct, it is a co-principal for another person’s act.